The title of the film is Coal Country directed by Mari-Lynn Evans released in 2009.
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film was centered around the coal industry and the devastating effects of their newest form of coal extraction; mountain top removal. Coal currently powers half of the energy in this country and as quoted by the film, “coal keeps the lights on”. The film does a great job of presenting the facts of coal from both side of the story, from the people who are seeing the effects, to the coal miners, to the coal executives and politicians. They make it clear that coal is cheap and used every day and that the traditional way of extracting it is too slow and too dangerous which is why they are turning to the cheaper, quicker and safer [for workers] way of extracting coal from the ground.
The film then shows that this new way of doing things is highly unsustainable, blowing up our mountains and pushing the waste into the valleys is ruining our ecosystem and wreaking havoc on human health. The coal industry is destroying the environment, polluting the water and air, and increasing cancer and disease in the towns they are working in.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film depicts many different sustainability problems in correlation to the coal industry. First off the process of mountain top removal itself is unsustainable, an interview in the film said “ we were not the ones to put them there we should not be the ones to take them down” and this is so true. It took millions of years for those mountains to get there and in a minute or two they can be blown to pieces, never to return to their former glory. When the coal industry blows up these mountains the coal ash flies into the air coating everything in the area with ash and dust ruining the ecosystem of the area and hurting the residents in the adjacent towns.
The film showed interviews with many townspeople one woman showed her toilet water, which was black, they also showed their filter [which needed to be changed every day] which was full of coal dust particles. The coal dust and ash just pores down on these people coating their homes and their lives with the remnants of the mountain they once loved. They stated that they feel like “prisoners of their own homes, we can’t even burn leaves in our lawns or branches without being arrested, and they can dump coal dust on us all day every day”.
Another sustainability issue is that the people of these towns are often forced to choose between a job and money or cancer. Most of the coal workers know that coal dust inhalation and coal ash are harmful to their health, and that their neighbors and friends are dying from cancer and other diseases because of it. The problem is that this is one of the only jobs available in this area that pays well enough to support a family, so the workers fight to keep their job and keep the coal businesses up and running. One interview actually brought out a humbling fact that "[mining] is the only job in town, southern West Virginia is one of the poorest parts [of the country]. You either see mining or flipping burgers.”
The other issues discussed in the film have more to do with the political and legal aspects of mountaintop removal and sustainability. By law coal companies are required to reclaim the mountaintop restoring trees, re-grading and re-vegetating the area. The problem with this is that they have already ruined the biodiversity of the area and chased out any natural animals and habitat that was there, they cant just come in and restore that to what it was before. Also they bring in new trees and plants that are not native to that area so the environment is not the same.
There are laws that exist now such as the Clean-Water Act and Buffer Zone Rule that are meant to protect the environment from restricting fill and waste material from close proximity to running water. These would protect the streams from having the “waste” from mountaintop removal to be dumped into the valleys where the streams run through. Unfortunately, government officials tend to side with the coal companies and the laws are not followed polluting streams and waterways across the country. Even when a case is won it is often overturned because of the public backlash, creating a vicious cycle of unsustainable behavior.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think that the entire film was well done and very compelling. Starting the film with the overview pictures of all the devastation from the coal industry where there are just chunks of mountain missing with no life and no green was extremely effective. Then to move into the images of mountains blowing up and all the debris and dust being dispersed in the air brought the problem to life and drew the viewer in beautifully.
The most compelling human aspects of the film were hearing all the testimonials from the townspeople and residents and finding out just how much the coal industry has impacted their lives, from loosing family members and friends to cancer to sympathizing with the coal workers who make a living extracting coal from these mountains. The interviews added a lot of insight into the problem and the many aspects that from the outside you might not have been able to see.
Another persuasive part of the film was seeing just how much of an impact the coal industry has on the towns and environment these people are living in. They showed the property value of two different houses located near a blasting site, and compared the property value before the blasting and after, and the difference in appraised price was astounding. One man said that he planned to live in the house he had build with his father for the rest of his life, to raise his children there and play in the backyard but now the dust and ash make it impossible to live there and be healthy. Not to mention there is a huge white dome in their backyard filled with toxic coal slurry that has broken multiple times, which make it an even greater hazard to live there.
Lastly, I really liked that the film showed both sides of the story. Often these documentaries only bring the negative side of the issue to light and Coal Country was different in that it showed you the people being hurt but also the people who depend on this industry for their livelihood.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced by the industry playing the job card and the whole reclamation process. First, the coal industry always defend themselves by saying that they provide jobs for millions of people and that if they change their ways these people would suffer. The fact of the matter is that the average wage for a coal worker is only around 50,000 a year for the dangerous work that they do and the coal companies give them very little incentive or recognition for what they do. One coal worker said that the only reward that he ever received was a small ring, the size of a high school class ring, for being a “good worker”.
The second aspect, reclamation, I was not convinced by because it doesn’t look like they are doing much to restore the mountain and it is not tightly regulated. Is like the coal companies can do it whenever they want and if they are slow to reclaim the mountain that there will be no penalty.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The part of the film about Rockafeller's changing his position on mountaintop removal made me wonder how many politicians change their viewpoint like that on these environmental issues because they would rather be in office than stand up for what they believe in. I would also like to see how many politicians or people of power fight for environmental causes and see what their biggest challenges are when trying to get work done for an issue.
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film is approachable from all levels, it talks a lot about energy issues and the effects of them and also about how politically we need to change what we are doing to protect our environment better. I think that viewers will be able to identify with the people who were interviewed and think of coal in a new light, maybe they can change their ways a little bit and fight a little bit harder in their states for renewable energy alternatives.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film didn’t give any quick fix solutions to the problems address, it was more or less provoking the viewer to get more involved and to have a voice about coal or any issue that is ruining the environment around us.
9What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to see a little bit more about how the coal industry locates where the coal is, and how they choose which mountains to blow up. Do they buy the land then destroy it or do they just come in with no rights and take the land?
The title of the film is Coal Country directed by Mari-Lynn Evans released in 2009.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film was centered around the coal industry and the devastating effects of their newest form of coal extraction; mountain top removal. Coal currently powers half of the energy in this country and as quoted by the film, “coal keeps the lights on”. The film does a great job of presenting the facts of coal from both side of the story, from the people who are seeing the effects, to the coal miners, to the coal executives and politicians. They make it clear that coal is cheap and used every day and that the traditional way of extracting it is too slow and too dangerous which is why they are turning to the cheaper, quicker and safer [for workers] way of extracting coal from the ground.
The film then shows that this new way of doing things is highly unsustainable, blowing up our mountains and pushing the waste into the valleys is ruining our ecosystem and wreaking havoc on human health. The coal industry is destroying the environment, polluting the water and air, and increasing cancer and disease in the towns they are working in.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film depicts many different sustainability problems in correlation to the coal industry. First off the process of mountain top removal itself is unsustainable, an interview in the film said “ we were not the ones to put them there we should not be the ones to take them down” and this is so true. It took millions of years for those mountains to get there and in a minute or two they can be blown to pieces, never to return to their former glory. When the coal industry blows up these mountains the coal ash flies into the air coating everything in the area with ash and dust ruining the ecosystem of the area and hurting the residents in the adjacent towns.
The film showed interviews with many townspeople one woman showed her toilet water, which was black, they also showed their filter [which needed to be changed every day] which was full of coal dust particles. The coal dust and ash just pores down on these people coating their homes and their lives with the remnants of the mountain they once loved. They stated that they feel like “prisoners of their own homes, we can’t even burn leaves in our lawns or branches without being arrested, and they can dump coal dust on us all day every day”.
Another sustainability issue is that the people of these towns are often forced to choose between a job and money or cancer. Most of the coal workers know that coal dust inhalation and coal ash are harmful to their health, and that their neighbors and friends are dying from cancer and other diseases because of it. The problem is that this is one of the only jobs available in this area that pays well enough to support a family, so the workers fight to keep their job and keep the coal businesses up and running. One interview actually brought out a humbling fact that "[mining] is the only job in town, southern West Virginia is one of the poorest parts [of the country]. You either see mining or flipping burgers.”
The other issues discussed in the film have more to do with the political and legal aspects of mountaintop removal and sustainability. By law coal companies are required to reclaim the mountaintop restoring trees, re-grading and re-vegetating the area. The problem with this is that they have already ruined the biodiversity of the area and chased out any natural animals and habitat that was there, they cant just come in and restore that to what it was before. Also they bring in new trees and plants that are not native to that area so the environment is not the same.
There are laws that exist now such as the Clean-Water Act and Buffer Zone Rule that are meant to protect the environment from restricting fill and waste material from close proximity to running water. These would protect the streams from having the “waste” from mountaintop removal to be dumped into the valleys where the streams run through. Unfortunately, government officials tend to side with the coal companies and the laws are not followed polluting streams and waterways across the country. Even when a case is won it is often overturned because of the public backlash, creating a vicious cycle of unsustainable behavior.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I think that the entire film was well done and very compelling. Starting the film with the overview pictures of all the devastation from the coal industry where there are just chunks of mountain missing with no life and no green was extremely effective. Then to move into the images of mountains blowing up and all the debris and dust being dispersed in the air brought the problem to life and drew the viewer in beautifully.
The most compelling human aspects of the film were hearing all the testimonials from the townspeople and residents and finding out just how much the coal industry has impacted their lives, from loosing family members and friends to cancer to sympathizing with the coal workers who make a living extracting coal from these mountains. The interviews added a lot of insight into the problem and the many aspects that from the outside you might not have been able to see.
Another persuasive part of the film was seeing just how much of an impact the coal industry has on the towns and environment these people are living in. They showed the property value of two different houses located near a blasting site, and compared the property value before the blasting and after, and the difference in appraised price was astounding. One man said that he planned to live in the house he had build with his father for the rest of his life, to raise his children there and play in the backyard but now the dust and ash make it impossible to live there and be healthy. Not to mention there is a huge white dome in their backyard filled with toxic coal slurry that has broken multiple times, which make it an even greater hazard to live there.
Lastly, I really liked that the film showed both sides of the story. Often these documentaries only bring the negative side of the issue to light and Coal Country was different in that it showed you the people being hurt but also the people who depend on this industry for their livelihood.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not convinced by the industry playing the job card and the whole reclamation process. First, the coal industry always defend themselves by saying that they provide jobs for millions of people and that if they change their ways these people would suffer. The fact of the matter is that the average wage for a coal worker is only around 50,000 a year for the dangerous work that they do and the coal companies give them very little incentive or recognition for what they do. One coal worker said that the only reward that he ever received was a small ring, the size of a high school class ring, for being a “good worker”.
The second aspect, reclamation, I was not convinced by because it doesn’t look like they are doing much to restore the mountain and it is not tightly regulated. Is like the coal companies can do it whenever they want and if they are slow to reclaim the mountain that there will be no penalty.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The part of the film about Rockafeller's changing his position on mountaintop removal made me wonder how many politicians change their viewpoint like that on these environmental issues because they would rather be in office than stand up for what they believe in. I would also like to see how many politicians or people of power fight for environmental causes and see what their biggest challenges are when trying to get work done for an issue.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film is approachable from all levels, it talks a lot about energy issues and the effects of them and also about how politically we need to change what we are doing to protect our environment better. I think that viewers will be able to identify with the people who were interviewed and think of coal in a new light, maybe they can change their ways a little bit and fight a little bit harder in their states for renewable energy alternatives.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film didn’t give any quick fix solutions to the problems address, it was more or less provoking the viewer to get more involved and to have a voice about coal or any issue that is ruining the environment around us.
9 What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to see a little bit more about how the coal industry locates where the coal is, and how they choose which mountains to blow up. Do they buy the land then destroy it or do they just come in with no rights and take the land?